[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: openldap-2.2.13 indexes
Citēju Quanah Gibson-Mount <email@example.com>:
> --On Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:16 AM -0400 Kirk Turner-Rustin
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Janis Pinkis wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> I have just started to play with 2.2 and bdb backed (so far i was using
> >> 2.1 with ldbm). My question is about bdb cache size. In post and faq's i
> >> have found out that index files must be in hash format and the id2entry
> >> and dn2id in btree format. But acording mu db_stat all my index files
> >> are in btree format. Am i doing something wrong?
> > Indexes were changed from hash to btree around OpenLDAP 2.2.6,
> > I think. Someone (Darin Broady?) posted a pragma for changing it
> > back to hash some time ago. Search the archives if you need to do
> > that for some reason.
> That's correct. Btree indices are remarkably faster when performing
> indexing over hashes (I did a series of tests comparing differences between
> the two at one point).
> Note: The results on the pages listed below are for much older versions of
> OpenLDAP in both the 2.1 (2.1.25) and 2.2 (2.2.5)series than what is
> available now, and are simply provided to display the differences between
> hash and btree indices.
OK. Then a next question. Can i use the same bdb cache size formula for indexes
as for dn2id and id2entry: pagesize*(internal_pages+1)?